Opposition question Law Commission’s support to One Nation, One Election
Opposition lawmakers on Thursday questioned the Law Commission’s support to the proposed power to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to defer polls — as envisaged in Article 82A(5) of the ‘One Nation, One Election’ bill that proposes simultaneous polls in the country — and rejected the law panel’s argument that the said bill does not require ratification by at least 50% of the state assemblies.
New Delhi: Opposition lawmakers on Thursday questioned the Law Commission’s support to the proposed power to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to defer polls — as envisaged in Article 82A(5) of the ‘One Nation, One Election’ bill that proposes simultaneous polls in the country — and rejected the law panel’s argument that the said bill does not require ratification by at least 50% of the state assemblies.
In its submission to the joint parliamentary committee (JPC) examining the Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, the Law Commission said the provisions in the proposed legislation are correct and suitable without any fear of ambiguity and do not “disturb the basic structure of the Constitution.” During the briefing, law panel also noted that the bill does not require ratification by at least 50% of the states to come into force.
“The Law Commission is of the view that the proposed amendment to the Constitution does not in any manner disturb the basic structure of the Constitution of India. The proposed amendment is not falling within the proviso to Article 368(2) of the Constitution and does not require state ratification,” a person aware of the details said.
The law panel argued that the powers proposed to be given to ECI for the purpose of simultaneous election in the proposed bill are a natural extension of its extant powers and there is no question of any excessive delegation to it, the person added.
Functionaries aware of the details said Opposition lawmakers, including Congress MP Manish Tewari, noted that under the Constitution, states are co-equal and not subservient to the Union legislature. Tewari as well as Trinamool Congress MP Kalyan Banerjee emphasised that the bill violated the basic structure. They pointed to Article 1, which defines India as a “Union of States” to put across the point that if the amendment bill affects the states, it impacts federalism, which comes under the ambit of basic structure. Tewari, functionaries said, maintained that if there was an interplay between state and the Centre, federalism kicks in. Therefore, ratification of states was important to pass the bill.
The Law Commission told the JPC that it was of the view that the provisions of the bill could be enacted by Parliament without there being any question on their constitutional validity. “The Bill can, accordingly, be enacted by Parliament through the procedure prescribed in Article 368 of the Constitution without there being any necessity of state ratification,” the law panel said.
